CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

Age of Candidacy

Christopher Leslie: The Government intend to legislate, when parliamentary time allows, to lower the age at which a candidate may stand for election from 21 to 18 years old. Such a change in policy is consistent with the recommendation made by the independent Electoral Commission in its report "The Age of Electoral Majority" published in April 2004.

DEFENCE

Review of Modelling of the Demolitions at Khamisiyah

Ivor Caplin: I am publishing today the Ministry of Defence paper "Review of Modelling of the Demolitions at Khamisiyah in March 1991 and Implications for UK Personnel". The purpose of the paper is to evaluate recent work undertaken by the US Department of Defence (DoD) which modelled the distribution of nerve agent released by US demolitions of Iraqi chemical weapons at the end of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict and to discuss its implications for UK personnel.
	The MOD has assessed the 2002 DoD model carefully and welcomes the improvements incorporated. The model better estimates the size and nature of the possible area of exposure. However, MOD notes that it utilises wide parameters in order to include the maximum number of personnel who could potentially have been exposed to any level of nerve agent. While it is appropriate to include a margin of this kind, MOD believes that the limits used in the model somewhat overstate the potential risk to UK troops. Nonetheless, MOD has used the model for its own analysis and concludes that:
	The model results in a generally smaller geographic exposure area than that described in earlier models.
	As estimated previously, approximately 9,000 UK Service personnel may have been within the area of possible exposure, with the closest some 130 km from Khamisiyah.
	The level of nerve agent would have been too low to have any biologically detectable effect on UK troops and would have a minimal impact on health; again this is consistent with previous findings.
	I am today placing copies of the paper in the Library of the House and it is being placed on the Ministry of Defence website at: www.gulfwar.mod.uk

Iraq

Geoff Hoon: Following the expiry of the Dutch mandate in Iraq and the planned withdrawal of its force of 1,400 personnel from Al Muthanna province in Iraq in March, the United Kingdom has, in its role as framework nation, reviewed with allies how security should continue to be provided in this part of multi-national division (South East) (MND(SE)).
	We have greatly appreciated the valuable contribution made by the Dutch Battle Group in Iraq. Dutch forces have made good progress in Al Muthanna, both in ensuring the stability of the province and building the capability of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF). This means that a significantly smaller force package is now able to perform these tasks and the General Officer Commanding (GOC) MND(SE) has concluded that a force of some 600 personnel will be adequate to support and mentor Iraqi Security Forces in providing general security in Al Muthanna, as well as providing protection for the Japanese reconstruction battalion located there.
	The majority of the personnel required will come from UK units already deployed in Iraq, principally the Queen's Dragoon Guards and the 2nd Battalion, the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment. A small number of additional personnel will also need to be deployed to provide logistics and other essential support to the force in Al Muthanna. This will temporarily increase the total number of UK personnel in Iraq by approximately 220, although this will subsequently fall to approximately 150, once the initial deployment to Al Muthanna is completed. Overall, however, the number of UK personnel deployed in Iraq is planned to fall by the end of February as the withdrawal of the extremely high readiness reserve takes place following the Iraqi elections.
	In the meantime, we continue to consult with allies on the best way to meet security tasks in the province.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

Chairman of English Partnerships (Reappointment)

Keith Hill: I wish to announce that Margaret Ford has been reappointed as Chairman of English Partnerships to serve a further three year term with effect from 1 April 2005. English Partnerships is the national regeneration agency supporting high quality sustainable growth in England.

Local Government Finance Settlement 2005–06

Nick Raynsford: I have today laid before the House, the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2005–06. This report establishes the amounts of revenue support grant (RSG) and non-domestic rates (NDR) to be paid to local authorities in 2005–06, and the basis of their distribution. A draft of this report was issued for consultation on 2 December 2004.
	I have also today laid before the House the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2003–04: Amending Report 2005. This report sets out the amended basis for distribution of RSG and NDR for 2003–04 following the incorporation of revised data into the calculations for the local government finance settlement for that year. A draft of this report was issued for consultation on 18 November 2004.
	The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister received a total of 299 written representations within the consultation deadlines from the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government, from local authorities, local authority groups and Honourable Members, and Ministers met with delegations from six local authority associations and representative groups to discuss the proposals.
	Having considered the views of the local authority associations and others who have commented on the provisional settlement, I have decided to confirm my proposals on the bases of distribution for 2005–06 and the amended bases for distribution for 2003–04.
	The final figures published today for the 2005–06 settlement reflect the more accurate data and resource totals that have become available since we published our proposals, and also appropriate data corrections to reflect errors discovered by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or notified to us by local authorities.
	This year's settlement represents a continued real terms increase in investment in local government, which will allow authorities to continue to deliver improving services at an affordable cost. We have provided an extra £408 million in formula grant above the published plans for local government for 2005–06. As a result, total formula grant for 2005–06 will be 5.6 per cent. higher than in 2004–05. This is the eighth successive year in which Government have provided local government overall with an increase in total Government grant above inflation, and combined with specific and special grants brings the total increase in money from Government to local councils to 33 per cent. in real terms since 1997.
	I shall be sending copies of these reports to all local authorities, and making available full supporting information on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website at http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/0506/grant.htm
	Copies of the reports and related tables showing each authority's formula spending shares and its allocation of RSG and NDR, and other supporting material in the Vote Office and the Library.

Gypsy and Traveller Sites

Yvette Cooper: We are publishing today the Government response to the ODPM Select Committee Report on Gypsy and Traveller Sites. We welcome the Committee's report as a very helpful and thorough contribution to the work we already have underway in addressing the demand for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation and issues related to it.
	We are already taking forward a number of measures to tackle the problems arising from the shortage of suitable Gypsy and Traveller accommodation experienced over many years and although our approach may differ in some ways from what the Committee suggests it is clear that we share common concerns and a determination to see effective remedies put in place.
	We believe our decision to mainstream the funding and provision of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs within the housing and planning systems is the key not only to providing the Gypsy and Traveller accommodation which is so sorely needed but a means to foster greater social inclusion between the Gypsy and Traveller community and the settled community generally.

HEALTH

Shipman Inquiry

John Reid: Dame Janet Smith, Chairman of the Shipman Inquiry, published her sixth report "Shipman: The Final Report" today. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.
	Once again the Government express their profound thanks to Dame Janet Smith and her team for their work throughout the lifetime of the inquiry. We also reiterate our sympathy to all the relatives and friends of Shipman's victims and express our thanks to them for their valuable contribution to the inquiry's work.

Shipman Inquiry (Fifth Report)

John Reid: In December, my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord Warner) announced that the launch of the General Medical Council's revalidation scheme should not start until doubts raised by Dame Janet Smith had been resolved. He said that it would be unfair to doctors and confusing for patients to start the new revalidation scheme until the question marks raised by Dame Janet on the evidence doctors would be required to submit had been answered.
	His announcement followed the publication of the fifth Shipman Report, "Safeguarding Patients: Lessons from the past—Proposals for the Future". In her report, Dame Janet Smith made it clear that she had concerns that the GMC's revised fitness to practise and revalidation procedures would not help to improve patient protection or safety sufficiently.
	I take what Dame Janet has said very seriously. I am determined to respond carefully and robustly to her recommendations to ensure that we develop a very strong patient protection plan. We want to put an end to the idea that the General Medical Council is a representative body for doctors. It is not. Its primary role must be to protect patients.
	In order to ensure that it does this effectively I have asked the chief medical officer for England, Sir Liam Donaldson to undertake a review and report his advice to me on what further measures are necessary to:
	Strengthen procedures for assuring the safety of patients in situations where a doctor's performance or conduct pose a risk to patient safety or the effective functioning of services;
	Ensure the operation of an effective system of revalidation;
	Reconfigure the role, structure and functions of the General Medical Council.
	I have asked the chief medical officer to report to me later this year. This will minimise any delay to the introduction of measures that will both improve patient safety and ensure that doctors are fit to practise. The chief medical officer will put an emphasis on patient safety. He will draw on the findings and recommendations made by Dame Janet and other inquiries on poor clinical performance and misconduct. An advisory group that includes experts from organisations representing consumer, healthcare quality and professional interests will support him.
	Dame Janet made a number of recommendations not directly covered by the terms of reference of the chief medical officer's review. Our consideration of these recommendations will continue in parallel to the work of the review, focusing particularly on improving measures designed to safeguard patients and improve the quality of the services provided to them.
	The full list of interest groups represented on the CMO's advisory group are:
	Professor Carol Black, President of the Royal College of Physicians;
	Professor Sir Graeme Catto, President of the General Medical Council;
	Mr James Johnson, Chairman of the British Medical Association;
	Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, Chairman of the Healthcare Commission;
	Mr Harry Cayton, Director for the Patients and Public;
	Dr Sheila Adam, Director of Public Health of the North East London Strategic Health Authority;
	Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, President of the Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland;
	Professor Angela Coulter, Chief Executive of the Picker Institute;
	Ms Janice Barber, Managing Partner at Hempsons Solicitors;
	Clara MaKay, Director of Policy and Research at Breast Cancer Care;
	Dr Mayur Lakhani, Chairman of Council at the Royal College of General Practitioners;
	Mr Michael Morgan, Director of the Change Partnership; former Human Resources Director of Northern Food;
	Niall Dickson, Director of the King's Fund;
	Malcolm Dean, Journalist at the Guardian Newspaper;
	Mrs Karen Straughair, Chief Executive of Sunderland Teaching Primary Care Trust;
	Jenny Simpson, Chief Executive of the British Association of Medical Managers;
	Captain Lowe, former Chief Pilot at British Airways;
	Ed Mayo, Chief Executive of the National Consumer Council; and
	Jane Wesson, Chair of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Hazel Blears: I have today placed in the Library a copy of the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2005–06 (HC 246). The report sets out my determination for 2005–06 of the aggregate amount of grants that I propose to pay under section 46(2) of the Police Act 1996, and the amount to be paid to each police authority and to the Greater London Authority for the Metropolitan Police Authority.
	I have also placed in the Library a copy of the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2003–04 (Amending Report 2004–05) (HC 247) to take account of changes to Office of National Statistics population data.
	General police grant allocations for each police authority for financial years 2004–05 and 2005–06 are set out in Table 1. Amended allocations for 2003–04 are set out in Table 2.
	
		Table 1: General grant allocations for each police authority for financial years 2004–05 and 2005–06
		
			  2004–05Allocation 1 2005–06Allocation 1 Change 2003–04Amending Report 2005–06Allocation Netof AR Change Change 
			 Police Authority £m £m % Change £m £m % 
		
		
			  English Shire forces 
			 Avon & Somerset 162.2 170.0 4.81% 0.0 170.0 4.80% 
			 Bedfordshire 62.1 65.1 4.85% -0.2 64.9 4.53% 
			 Cambridgeshire 73.4 77.9 6.08% 0.1 78.0 6.28% 
			 Cheshire 107.2 111.3 3.75% 0.2 111.5 3.95% 
			 Cleveland 86.8 90.9 4.67% 0.2 91.1 4.87% 
			 Cumbria 59.6 62.1 4.13% -0.2 61.9 3.76% 
			 Derbyshire 101.2 105.0 3.75% 0.0 105.0 3.75% 
			 Devon & Cornwall 166.8 173.0 3.75% 0.0 173.0 3.75% 
			 Dorset 63.6 66.0 3.75% 0.0 66.0 3.75% 
			 Durham 84.2 87.8 4.30% -0.4 87.4 3.77% 
			 Essex 160.9 167.0 3.75% 0.0 167.0 3.75% 
			 Gloucestershire 58.9 61.1 3.77% 0.0 61.1 3.77% 
			 Hampshire 190.5 197.7 3.75% 0.0 197.7 3.75% 
			 Hertfordshire 104.8 108.8 3.77% 0.0 108.8 3.77% 
			 Humberside 114.6 118.9 3.75% 0.2 119.1 3.95% 
			 Kent 182.6 189.5 3.75% 0.0 189.5 3.75% 
			 Lancashire 182.9 190.8 4.31% 0.4 191.1 4.52% 
			 Leicestershire 102.0 107.7 5.61% -0.3 107.4 5.33% 
			 Lincolnshire 60.6 63.4 4.51% 0.0 63.4 4.51% 
			 Norfolk 82.2 85.9 4.51% -0.5 85.4 3.93% 
			 North Yorkshire 72.7 75.4 3.75% 0.0 75.4 3.75% 
			 Northamptonshire 64.3 67.8 5.46% 0.1 67.9 5.66% 
			 Nottinghamshire 127.6 133.3 4.50% -0.5 132.8 4.08% 
			 Staffordshire 109.2 113.3 3.75% 0.0 113.3 3.75% 
			 Suffolk 66.0 68.5 3.75% 0.0 68.5 3.75% 
			 Surrey 88.2 91.5 3.75% 0.0 91.5 3.75% 
			 Sussex 158.1 164.0 3.75% 0.0 164.0 3.75% 
			 Thames Valley 212.7 220.6 3.75% 0.0 220.6 3.75% 
			 Warwickshire 49.8 51.8 4.03% 0.0 51.8 4.03% 
			 West Mercia 107.7 111.8 3.75% 0.0 111.8 3.75% 
			 Wiltshire 60.6 62.9 3.91% -0.1 62.9 3.76% 
			 Shires Total 3,324.0 3,460.6 4.11% -1.0 3,459.6 4.08% 
			  English Metropolitan forces 
			 Greater Manchester 393.2 412.5 4.89% 0.8 413.3 5.10% 
			 Merseyside 248.4 257.7 3.75% 0.5 258.2 3.95% 
			 Northumbria 221.4 232.2 4.87% 0.4 232.6 5.08% 
			 South Yorkshire 178.0 185.7 4.33% -1.0 184.7 3.77% 
			 West Midlands 399.3 426.5 6.81% 0.8 427.3 7.01% 
			 West Yorkshire 298.9 313.6 4.95% 0.6 314.2 5.15% 
			 Mets Total 1,739.1 1,828.1 5.12% 2.2 1,830.3 5.24% 
			  London forces 
			 GLA—Police 1,822.0 1,927.8 5.81% 4.2 1,932.1 6.04% 
			 City of London 2 32.7 35.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
			 London Total 1,854.7 1,963.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
			 English Total 6,917.8 7,252.3 4.83% 5.4 7,257.7 4.83% 
			  Welsh forces 
			 Dyfed-Powys 3 50.3 52.2 3.75% 0.0 52.2 3.75% 
			 Gwent 3 71.1 74.1 4.17% -0.3 73.8 3.77% 
			 North Wales 3 75.2 78.3 4.06% -0.2 78.0 3.76% 
			 South Wales 3 168.2 174.5 3.75% 0.0 174.5 3.75% 
			 Welsh total 364.9 379.1 3.90% -0.5 378.6 3.76% 
			 TOTAL 7,282.7 7,631.4 4.79% 4.9 7,636.3 4.85% 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. Rounded to the nearest £100,000. Grant as calculated under the Local Government Finance Report (England) and Local Government Finance (Police) Report (Wales). This includes the Metropolitan Police special payment, and the effects of floors and ceilings.
	2. Figures for the City of London relate to Home Office Grant only as calculated in the Police Grant Report (England and Wales). Revenue Support Grant is allocated to the Common Council of the City of London as a whole in respect of all its functions. The City is grouped with education authorities for the purposes of floors and ceilings.
	3. Welsh base positions are adjusted to account for the transfer of PFI funding out of RSG.
	
		Table 2: Amended general grant allocations for each police authority in 2003–04 against original 2003–04 allocations
		
			 PoliceAuthority 2003–04OriginalAllocation 1 2003–04AmendedAllocation 1 Change between original and amended 2003–04 
			  £m £m £m % 
		
		
			  English Shire forces 
			 Avon & Somerset 157.1 157.1 0.0 0.0% 
			 Bedfordshire 60.1 59.9 -0.2 -0.3% 
			 Cambridgeshire 71.1 71.2 0.1 0.2% 
			 Cheshire 103.9 104.1 0.2 0.2% 
			 Cleveland 84.1 84.2 0.2 0.2% 
			 Cumbria 57.7 57.5 -0.2 -0.4% 
			 Derbyshire 97.9 97.9 0.0 0.0% 
			 Devon & Cornwall 161.5 161.5 0.0 0.0% 
			 Dorset 61.6 61.6 0.0 0.0% 
			 Durham 81.5 81.1 -0.4 -0.5% 
			 Essex 155.9 155.9 0.0 0.0% 
			 Gloucestershire 57.0 57.0 0.0 0.0% 
			 Hampshire 184.5 184.5 0.0 0.0% 
			 Hertfordshire 101.5 101.5 0.0 0.0% 
			 Humberside 110.9 111.2 0.2 0.2% 
			 Kent 176.8 176.8 0.0 0.0% 
			 Lancashire 177.1 177.5 0.4 0.2% 
			 Leicestershire 98.8 98.5 -0.3 -0.3% 
			 Lincolnshire 58.7 58.7 0.0 0.0% 
			 Norfolk 79.6 79.1 -0.5 -0.6% 
			 North Yorkshire 70.4 70.4 0.0 0.0% 
			 Northamptonshire 62.2 62.4 0.1 0.2% 
			 Nottinghamshire 123.6 123.0 -0.5 -0.4% 
			 Staffordshire 105.8 105.8 0.0 0.0% 
			 Suffolk 63.9 63.9 0.0 0.0% 
			 Surrey 85.4 85.4 0.0 0.0% 
			 Sussex 153.1 153.1 0.0 0.0% 
			 Thames Valley 205.9 205.9 0.0 0.0% 
			 Warwickshire 48.2 48.2 0.0 0.0% 
			 West Mercia 104.4 104.4 0.0 0.0% 
			 Wiltshire 58.7 58.6 -0.1 -0.2% 
			 Total 3,218.8 3,217.8 -1.0 0.0% 
			  English Metropolitan forces 
			 Greater Manchester 380.8 381.6 0.8 0.2% 
			 Merseyside 240.5 241.0 0.5 0.2% 
			 Northumbria 214.3 214.8 0.4 0.2% 
			 South Yorkshire 172.3 171.3 -1.0 -0.6% 
			 West Midlands 386.5 387.3 0.8 0.2% 
			 West Yorkshire 289.4 290.0 0.6 0.2% 
			 Total 1,683.8 1,686.0 2.2 0.1% 
			  London forces 
			 GLA—Police 1,764.1 1,768.3 4.2 0.2% 
			 City of London 2 96.2 96.2 0.0 0.0% 
			 Total 1,860.3 1,864.5 4.2 0.2% 
			  
			 English Total 6,762.9 6,768.3 5.4 0.1% 
			  Welsh forces 
			 Dyfed-Powys 3 49.3 49.3 0.0 0.0% 
			 Gwent 3 69.6 69.3 -0.3 -0.4% 
			 North Wales 3 73.3 73.1 -0.2 -0.3% 
			 South Wales 3 163.0 163.0 0.0 0.0% 
			 Welsh total 355.2 354.7 -0.5 -0.1% 
			 TOTAL 7,118.1 7,123.0 4.9 0.1% 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. Grant includes principal Home Office Police Grant, ODPM/WAG Revenue Support Grant and National Non Domestic Rates, as calculated under the Local Government Finance Report (England) and Local Government Finance Report (Wales). Figures are rounded to the nearest £100k and percentages rounded to one decimal point. Grant includes the effects of floors and ceilings.
	2. RSG figures for the City are allocated to the Common Council of the City of London as a whole in respect of all its functions. The City is in the Education floors and ceilings group and received a ceiling settlement of 8 per cent.
	3. Welsh figures include Home Office specific grant floor payments for Dyfed-Powys and South Wales.

Criminal Records Bureau

Hazel Blears: I am pleased to announce that the Criminal Records Bureau annual report and accounts 2003–04 has been published today and I am pleased to say that copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

Police (Firearms)

Caroline Flint: The statistics for 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 show that the number of police operations in which firearms were issued was 16,657. The number of times a conventional firearm was discharged by police was eight which covered four incidents. A baton round was discharged on 15 occasions and a Taser was fired on 13 occasions as less lethal alternatives to conventional firearms.
	Armed response vehicles were deployed on 13,218 occasions and there were 6,099 authorised firearms officers in England and Wales.
	Full details are set out in the tables below:
	
		Number of Operations in which Firearms were Authorised
		
			  2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 
		
		
			 Total 11,109 13,991 14,827 16,657 
			 Avon & Somerset 65 195 262 311 
			 Bedfordshire 294 237 301 442 
			 Cambridgeshire 71 114 57 104 
			 Cheshire 545 419 451 397 
			 Cleveland 28 37 170 453 
			 City of London 3 40 131 364 
			 Cumbria 30 71 77 72 
			 Derbyshire 167 275 401 369 
			 Devon & Cornwall 151 101 96 112 
			 Dorset 174 184 193 231 
			 Durham 40 89 83 156 
			 Essex 435 323 312 275 
			 Gloucestershire 48 165 185 127 
			 Gtr Manchester 357 580 518 507 
			 Hampshire 114 198 162 208 
			 Hertfordshire 86 112 172 195 
			 Humberside 158 297 187 183 
			 Kent 83 115 137 207 
			 Lancashire 242 232 238 318 
			 Leicestershire 217 300 268 295 
			 Lincolnshire 336 477 392 386 
			 Merseyside 825 1,020 628 751 
			 Metropolitan 1,862 2,447 3,199 3,563 
			 Norfolk 226 175 200 178 
			 Northamptonshire 58 43 138 148 
			 Northumbria 708 1,440 1,275 1,140 
			 North Yorkshire 72 92 100 147 
			 Nottinghamshire 233 384 452 459 
			 South Yorkshire 127 258 463 484 
			 Staffordshire 203 232 281 255 
			 Suffolk 176 163 270 251 
			 Surrey 221 245 247 203 
			 Sussex 353 248 204 280 
			 Thames Valley 153 179 167 195 
			 Warwickshire 233 130 149 164 
			 West Mercia 36 117 91 197 
			 West Midlands 485 822 902 1,377 
			 West Yorkshire 822 757 604 575 
			 Wiltshire 66 45 58 63 
			 Dyfed Powys 18 28 29 28 
			 Gwent 30 20 37 40 
			 North Wales 195 302 259 197 
			 South Wales 363 283 281 250 
		
	
	
		Number of Authorised Firearms Offices (AFOs)
		
			  2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 
		
		
			 Total 6,064 5,776 5,763 6,096 
			 Avon & Somerset 135 116 84 122 
			 Bedfordshire 45 48 53 58 
			 Cambridgeshire 73 56 71 60 
			 Cheshire 74 81 89 75 
			 Cleveland 75 85 80 95 
			 City of London 74 73 72 86 
			 Cumbria 94 92 87 89 
			 Derbyshire 81 80 69 70 
			 Devon & Cornwall 100 108 115 132 
			 Dorset 67 57 59 60 
			 Durham 101 86 102 97 
			 Essex 195 180 184 186 
			 Gloucestershire 72 71 80 82 
			 Gtr Manchester 240 219 202 205 
			 Hampshire 100 87 94 94 
			 Hertfordshire 44 46 47 50 
			 Humberside 102 96 96 96 
			 Kent 136 113 93 90 
			 Lancashire 132 138 129 122 
			 Leicestershire 85 69 68 51 
			 Lincolnshire 80 91 87 78 
			 Merseyside 103 78 84 94 
			 Metropolitan 1,940 1,805 1,823 2,060 
			 Norfolk 114 104 109 114 
			 Northamptonshire 77 51 56 52 
			 Northumbria 109 125 99 90 
			 North Yorkshire 66 66 64 60 
			 Nottinghamshire 137 136 131 138 
			 South Yorkshire 98 92 100 98 
			 Staffordshire 67 71 63 67 
			 Suffolk 90 90 80 96 
			 Surrey 72 62 48 53 
			 Sussex 118 120 141 134 
			 Thames Valley 185 156 180 172 
			 Warwickshire 45 50 51 46 
			 West Mercia 130 125 131 139 
			 West Midlands 83 111 110 124 
			 West Yorkshire 117 116 132 140 
			 Wiltshire 71 71 78 80 
			 Dyfed Powys 61 77 62 58 
			 Gwent 66 57 60 71 
			 North Wales 67 83 75 73 
			 South Wales 143 138 125 139 
		
	
	
		Number of Operations Involving Armed ResponseVehicles (ARVs)
		
			  2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 
		
		
			 Total 8,179 11,574 11,848 13,218 
			 Avon & Somerset 56 173 215 249 
			 Bedfordshire 253 172 269 414 
			 Cambridgeshire 36 43 45 155 
			 Cheshire 441 523 337 356 
			 Cleveland 16 13 63 86 
			 City of London 30 39 131 364 
			 Cumbria 27 53 45 65 
			 Derbyshire 152 253 363 312 
			 Devon & Cornwall 121 76 32 94 
			 Dorset 155 182 180 215 
			 Durham 31 57 66 96 
			 Essex 206 165 176 138 
			 Gloucestershire 39 140 166 109 
			 Gtr Manchester 302 528 406 440 
			 Hampshire 84 116 108 128 
			 Hertfordshire 65 81 129 157 
			 Humberside 136 273 170 158 
			 Kent 64 89 132 193 
			 Lancashire 177 192 185 273 
			 Leicestershire 195 292 232 269 
			 Lincolnshire 324 470 367 355 
			 Merseyside 75 974 547 687 
			 Metropolitan 1,380 1,667 2,447 2,423 
			 Norfolk 192 157 186 169 
			 Northamptonshire 35 25 90 99 
			 Northumbria 655 1,349 1,204 1,063 
			 North Yorkshire 54 60 67 110 
			 Nottinghamshire 207 333 397 404 
			 South Yorkshire 103 221 280 322 
			 Staffordshire 136 208 241 212 
			 Suffolk 103 116 160 194 
			 Surrey 192 225 240 190 
			 Sussex 245 189 171 250 
			 Thames Valley 108 174 167 179 
			 Warwickshire 194 104 31 138 
			 West Mercia 26 100 111 241 
			 West Midlands 243 563 592 975 
			 West Yorkshire 785 609 565 543 
			 Wiltshire 48 43 39 28 
			 Dyfed Powys 18 28 29 28 
			 Gwent 17 16 16 23 
			 North Wales 155 265 198 153 
			 South Wales 298 218 253 161

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Domestic Dog and Cat Fur (Alleged Imports)

Douglas Alexander: The Government promised to report back to both Houses 12 months from my predecessor's statement to the House on 28 January 2004, Official Report, columns 11–12WS on the alleged import of domestic cat and dog fur into the UK.
	The Government understand the ethical abhorrence felt about this issue. Our priority remains to establish the facts about the extent of this alleged trade and to act in a measured way. To this end, we encouraged interested parties to come forward with hard evidence of such fur being on sale in the UK and we undertook work to establish a reliable scientific test to identify between different species of fur.
	In July 2003 the Government invited interested parties to produce hard evidence of a problem in the UK, but to date there is no substantive evidence that such fur is entering the UK in significant and commercial quantities, if at all.
	The Government have been working in parallel to establish a scientific test to make it possible to reliably ascertain what species of animal any given fur sample has come from. Such a test is essential to enable trading standards officers to address allegations of mislabelling arising under the existing Trade Descriptions Act and to help establish whether domestic cat and dog fur is on sale in the UK.
	Last January we reported back on work commissioned on the mass spectrometry means of distinguishing the furs of domestic cat and dogs from that of other animal species. Scientific experts at the former Laboratory of the Government Chemist (LGC Ltd.) concluded that mass spectrometry was not yet sufficiently reliable.
	The database of fur samples on which the mass spectrometry method relies, together with the search algorithms used in testing were improved in the year since the last tests were commissioned. On the basis of new tests commissioned in autumn 2004, LGC Ltd. has concluded that from this limited trial, the use MALDI TOF Mass Spectrometry to identify domestic dog and cat hair from other species is a viable option, although a question mark remains on identifying fur which has been chemically treated.
	The UK keeps in touch with officials in several countries where the possible trade in domestic cat and dog fur is a concern, including the USA, Australia, France, Belgium and Sweden. We will be sharing our findings from the "mass spectrometry" trials with these governments and with all our European partners.
	The Government position remains that without hard evidence of such imports at commercial levels to the UK, we will not consider legislation and that any action would be most effective if taken at EU level. The Government continue to welcome input and evidence from interested stakeholders and will continue to share information with other Governments, particularly those in Europe.

TRANSPORT

Railways Bill (Scotland)

Tony McNulty: The provisions in the Railways Bill, which is due to complete its Commons consideration today, would devolve to the Scottish Ministers additional powers and functions to determine Scottish railway strategies; to let, monitor and manage the Scotrail franchise; and to specify rail infrastructure needs in Scotland. They will also be able to set fares and fund improvements to the railway. Only some functions—principally safety and the licensing of railway operators—will remain reserved to UK Ministers.
	The changes in the Railways Bill affect the executive powers of the Scottish Ministers. Responsibility for primary legislation dealing with the management and operation of railways remains reserved to the Westminster Parliament.
	Under the Sewel Convention the Government have committed not to vary the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, in order to legislate in the Railways Bill the Parliament must give its consent to the Sewel motion for those aspects of the Bill which relate to devolving additional executive powers and functions to the Scottish Ministers. The motion put to the Scottish Parliament was:
	Railways Bill
	"That the Parliament agrees that those provisions that confer executive powers and functions on the Scottish Ministers in the Railways Bill and those that relate to devolved matters should be considered by the UK Parliament".
	The Scottish Parliament considered and agreed this motion on 26 January.
	To support these devolved responsibilities, the Secretary of State has announced that agreement has been reached with Scottish Ministers to transfer approximately £325 million to the Scottish Executive which would provide sufficient funding to cover all the responsibilities being transferred by virtue of the Railways Bill.
	As part of this settlement the following funding transfers have been agreed:
	The Scottish Executive will receive a Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) transfer from the Department for Transport (DfT) of £7.5 million to accompany the transfer of the majority of the Strategic Rail Authority's (SRA's) functions to the Scottish Executive. This sum represents the application of the Barnett formula (0.1023) to 75 per cent. of the relevant SRA budgets for 2004–05.
	The Scottish Executive will receive a DEL transfer from DfT of £302 million to fund Network Rail's Operation, Maintenance and Renewals activities in Scotland to deliver the network outputs in Scotland. This will take effect from 1 April 2006.
	A significant proportion of the £302 million total relates to a new Scotland element of Network Rail's regulatory asset base (RAB). The disagregation of the current GB RAB into elements for Scotland and for England and Wales will be determined by the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) before the end of 2005, following joint representations by DfT and the Scottish Executive. The DfT and Scottish Executive will each receive funding precisely sufficient to remunerate their respective RABs. The Scottish Executive and DfT agree that the best estimate that can be made of the RAB for Scotland in advance of the ORR's determination is that it will be very close to 10 per cent. of the RAB for Great Britain, which is the basis on which the RAB spend above is calculated.
	In addition, in order to fund rail enhancements the Scottish Executive will receive the following:
	a DEL transfer of £17 million from 1 April 2006;
	a proportionate increase, via the application of the Barnett Formula, of future increases in DfT's spending on enhancements in England and Wales as an outcome from future Spending Reviews.
	Scotland will also benefit from a proportionate share of the following funding sources:
	A 10 per cent. share of the planned "small schemes pot" funding for Network Rail to take forward small enhancement schemes, as was announced in the White Paper.
	The undertaking of enhancement works in Scotland to enable compliance with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
	Finally, the ORR will have the same range of responsibilities in Scotland as in England and Wales. Like the Secretary of State for Transport, Scottish Ministers will be required to provide guidance to the ORR on desired outputs, and ORR will determine the cost of delivering these outputs. To reflect the fact that in future Network Rail will be funded by two Governments, a separate binding arrangement between Scottish Ministers and Network Rail will be established, similar to the parallel binding arrangement between UK Ministers and Network Rail. No transfer of resources is required to reflect these arrangements.

WORK AND PENSIONS

Southampton City Council (Benefit Fraud Inspectorate)

Chris Pond: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) report on Southampton City Council's processing of claims for housing benefits was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library. In 2003–04 Southampton City Council administered approximately £67.5 million in housing benefits. This is approximately 13 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure.
	Southampton City Council was selected for inspection because it was taking 99 days on average to process new Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit claims compared to the Department for Work and Pensions standard of 36 days.
	BFI found that the council had made improvements since the first BFI inspection report, published in 2002 and that in the first quarter of 2004–05 new claims performance had improved to 57 days. The Verification Framework was introduced in October 2002 and claims are now being verified to a high standard. A comprehensive set of management checking procedures is now in place and claims are monitored to identify if a payment on account is required. Although these factors have improved the quality of new claims processing, there needs to be more proactive management at all stages of the new claims process if Southampton City Council is to reach the standard of 36 days.
	The report makes recommendations to help the council improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit. It also contains the council's action plan for implementation of the recommendations.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and may ask the council for its proposals in response to BFI's findings and recommendations.

Chelmsford Borough Council (Benefit Fraud Inspectorate)

Chris Pond: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the benefit fraud inspectorate (BFI) report on Chelmsford borough council's processing of claims for housing benefits was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library. In 2003–04 Chelmsford borough council administered some £27 million in housing benefits. This is approximately 36 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure.
	Chelmsford borough council was selected for inspection because it was reporting that it was taking 101 days on average to process new housing benefit and council tax benefit claims, compared to the Department for Work and Pensions standard of 36 days.
	At the time of inspection only 33 per cent. of new claims were decided within 14 days of all information being available and claims were taking an average of 93 days from date of receipt to date of decision. The council attributed poor clearance times over the last two years to the effects of introducing new IT and document management systems and the verification framework over a short period in late 2003. There were delays at most stages of the new claims process and staff lacked confidence in the new benefits IT and document management systems.
	Also, although Chelmsford borough council had good policies and procedures for verifying claims, these were not always followed. There were clear strengths in verification of identity, confirming residency and verifying national insurance numbers, but weaknesses in other areas.
	Chelmsford borough council is aware of its problems and has already sought assistance from the Department for Work and Pensions Performance development team.
	The report makes recommendations to help the council improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and may ask the council for its proposals in response to BFI's findings and recommendations.

Wyre Borough Council (Benefit Fraud Inspectorate)

Chris Pond: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the benefit fraud inspectorate (BFI) report on Wyre borough council's processing of claims for housing benefits was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library. In 2002–03 Wyre borough council administered approximately £19 million in housing benefits. This is approximately 45 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure.
	Wyre borough council was selected for inspection as it was taking on average just 23 days to process new housing benefit and council tax benefit claims, compared to the Department for Work and Pensions standard of 36 days. This suggested scope for BFI to identify and disseminate good practices.
	Over a two year period Wyre borough council has achieved significant improvements in both the speed and accuracy of processing claims. Its performance on the average time for processing new claims improved from 71 days in 2001–02 to 33 days in 2003–04. Its reported performance of cases processed accurately was 93 per cent. in 2001–02 rising to 98 per cent. in 2003–04.
	Wyre borough council achieved this very good performance through a change programme that made significant changes to work processes and how work and staff were managed and monitored.
	By taking an informed and incremental approach Wyre borough council has developed its benefits service so that it now delivers a better service to customers, gives a high level of assurance to senior managers and elected members and provides development opportunities for staff.
	BFI believes that improvements in Wyre borough council's strategic management, by, for example, developing procedural guidance would further enhance performance.
	The report makes recommendations to help the council improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and may ask the council for its proposals in response to BFI's findings and recommendations.

Renfrewshire Council (Benefit Fraud Inspectorate)

Chris Pond: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the benefit fraud inspectorate (BFI) report on Renfrewshire council's processing of claims for housing benefits was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library. In 2003–04 Renfrewshire council administered some £51 million in housing benefits. This is approximately 11 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure.
	Renfrewshire council was selected for inspection because it was reporting that it was taking 87 days on average to process new housing benefit and council tax benefit claims, compared to the Department for Work and Pensions standard of 36 days. BFI found that errors in the council's use of its IT system led to incorrect calculations of the performance against the best value performance indicator. The council was actually taking an average of 43 days to process new claims for housing benefits.
	Even within the actual times taken BFI found several process weaknesses that caused unnecessary delays in handling new claims and a weak management case-checking process that allowed errors to be repeated.
	The report makes recommendations to help the council improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit. It also contains the council's action plan for implementation of the recommendations immediately.
	The council has made organisational changes designed to address weaknesses in the management of the benefits service and responded positively to the findings from the inspection by implementing a number of the recommendations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and may ask the council for its proposals in response to BFI's findings and recommendations.